home

Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread

If you want to see a good pitch in favor of the health bill, Kevin Drum has one:

"Community rating" is wonkspeak for a requirement that health insurers cover everyone at the same price, regardless of preexisting conditions or health status. James Surowiecki says it makes private health insurance unnecessary [. . .] I agree, and it's one of the reasons that, warts and all, I support the current healthcare reform legislation so strongly. My take is that community rating at the national level can eventually lead to only two outcomes: (a) the end of private health insurance completely1 or (b) the transformation of private insurers into regulated public utilities.[. . .] I'd prefer the former, but the regulated utility model works OK too, and it's hard to see how you avoid one or the other in the long run.

If true, then hosanna. The problem is, as always, regulatory capture. Will the community ratings be enforced or will there be a new formula built to beat the system? As Drum says, a public option would have insured (pun intended) a good result. But we did not get that.

Also I agree with John Cole here.

This is an Open Thread.

< If You Don't Agree With Obama, Find Another Party? | Houston Islamic School Confirms Abdulmutallab Attended Classes >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The problem with "community rating" in (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by scribe on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:00:25 PM EST
    the current bill, is that it is not "community rating".  The current bill provides that insurers can charge older people up to three times what they charge younger people, and there are other similar discriminations in the bill which make any claim there is "community rating" so much hogwash.

    I could support it, if there were real community rating.  But there isn't, so I don't.

    Important point. (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:02:53 PM EST
    Taser ruling. (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:07:15 PM EST
    The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling Monday limiting police use of Tasers against people who are posing no immediate threat and may be mentally ill...

    ...The court, which handles appeals in nine Western states and Guam, ruled in the case of a man named Carl Bryan, who was hit with a Taser by Coronado, Calif., police Officer Brian McPherson while Bryan was having what the court called "a tantrum" after a traffic stop. But, the court noted, Bryan did not threaten the officer or advance toward him, making use of the Taser excessive force under the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment.

    Link

    Good ruling... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:23:27 PM EST
    don't see how it can be enforced though...the taser users, when in doubt, will just drum up some immediate threat on their reports from now on.

    Nice gesture though 9th!

    Parent

    We will never agree on this, but I (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:26:46 PM EST
    don't think the court should require an officer whose order has been ignored who is dealing with an irrational person who has not been searched for weapons to wait for backup.

    Parent
    I'm gonna break you down one day...:) (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:48:55 PM EST
    What if the officer issuing the orders is irrational?  What if the orders are unlawful?

    I'm reading "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy and there is the line...

    "He thought that in the history of the world it might even be that there was more punishment than crime but he took small comfort from it."

    I have no doubt there has been more punishment than crime.

    Parent

    Person tasered didn't have seat belt (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:55:29 PM EST
    on and admitted it.  Officer observed this from outside the car.  Officer had probable cause to contact person.  Officer ordered person to remain in car.  Person didn't.  Lawful order of a peace officer.  

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:59:51 PM EST
    that if a peace officer's rules of engagement can so easily lead from a seatbelt violation to tasering, it's worth reconsidering those rules of engagement.

    I thought you understood that the official TL position is that tasers are only suitable for 11-year old kids, anyway.

    Parent

    Person tasered was exhibiting irrational (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:01:27 PM EST
    behaviour outside the car.  

    Yes, young step-sons who agreed to be tasered are fair game.  

    Parent

    Just saying (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:05:16 PM EST
    if the guy didn't pose an immediate threat, I don't really care if he was acting irrationally.  Some would say voting Republican is acting irrationally.  Tasers are for people who pose a threat.

    Parent
    My dear friend oculus... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:14:29 PM EST
    is exhibiting irrational behavior...a freakin' seat belt oc?  You gotta be kiddin' me, I only read Mile's link, it just said traffic stop...a freakin' seat belt?

    Maybe technically lawful but certainly irrational.

    Parent

    Maybe so. As far as I can tell, the officer (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:11:54 PM EST
    did not articulate fear for himself or others, including the driver.  I do wonder if the officer was confident the driver, who was out of the car, had no weapons and couldn't reach anything in the car from his position with his back to the officer.  

    Should the officer just stand there while the man acts out after calling for back up?  Try to throw a net over the man?  What are the options?  

    Parent

    Options? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:21:13 PM EST
    Are you telling me that the cops don't get specialized training on how to deal with exactly these types of situations without immediately resorting to the highest level of force?  

    Parent
    9th Circuit sd. taser is "intermediate" (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 09:58:10 PM EST
    level of force.  

    Parent
    Here is the 9th Circuit opinion: (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 10:10:56 PM EST
    link

    The statement of facts in the opinion reads like a short story.  Kind of unusual for an appellate opinion.

    Please note the tasered person's brother was in the car and:

    There is no dispute that Bryan was agitated, standing outside his car, yelling gibberish and hitting his thighs


    Parent
    I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:21:48 PM EST
    during the 225-odd years of US history before the taser came into widespread use, how did the police handle those situations?

    Parent
    It would be interesting to see the stats (none / 0) (#80)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 08:14:30 PM EST
    of civilian and officer stop/arrest injuries, conflict escalations, etc., etc., pre and post the general use of tasers...

    Parent
    Well... (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:30:05 PM EST
    ...if nothing else, as the Denver Post article points out, it is putting doubts in their heads.  Perhaps we'll gain a more thoughtful use of this kind of force--like not using them on freakin' scared kids cowering in a corner!

    Parent
    Yes. Will be interested to see what (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:25:11 PM EST
    happens at trial, as this was affirmation by 9th circuit of federal trial court's ruling on MSJ.  For example, the suspect's back was to the law enforcement officer; suspect was out of vehilce after officer ordered suspect to remain in vehicle; and I haven't seen any discussion of whether suspect could reach into vehicle from his location.  

    I expected this to be front page here a couple of days ago.

    Parent

    Shipfhol Airport, Amsterdam, (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:29:12 PM EST
    had body scanners, but U.S., due to concerns re privacy, asked they not be employed re passengers coming to U.S.  CBS news

    Now... (none / 0) (#15)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:31:49 PM EST
    ...they need to hire some good radiologists to spot diseases like cancer.  Might as well get some good out of all the radiation.

    Parent
    I rather be irradiated than dead. (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:32:48 PM EST
    YMMV.  

    Parent
    And it does. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:37:10 PM EST
    But then, I'm not scared of death.  

    Parent
    radiation can kill you too (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CST on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:58:52 PM EST
    I wonder what the odds are of dying of radiation related cancer vs. terrorist attack on a plane.

    Either way, I personally would prefer a puffer.

    There has got to be a better way than full body scan.

    Parent

    I'd much rather... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:09:33 PM EST
    ...a quick death than a slow, torturous, painful, lingering one.  

    Parent
    Segue: death. (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:56:54 PM EST
    Joshua has been lit up so many times (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:39:05 PM EST
    That poor kid gets two sets of body xrays every surgery twice a year, about four views.  Then when checking on his feet they do about three different views once a year.  I walk in and grab one of those gowns and just go, someone has to help him keep his balance sometimes during the taking of the xray.  I've stopped even thinking about it.  What other option is there for him?

    Parent
    Yeah... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:29:09 PM EST
    I vote puffer...least intrusive, and the best tool for the task at hand...explosives.

    Parent
    Either that or (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:44:40 PM EST
    canines for me. It bothers me that they upped the pat downs. This dude had the explosives in his crotch. Do they really want to go there . . .? Full body scans are too invasive for my taste.

    Of course, it would help if our depts would just freakin' talk to each other.

    Parent

    Ha ha (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:35:56 PM EST
    A total U.S. failure.  In fact we opted out of what was available :)  Just wait until the mister calls around 7:00ish....or maybe not, sometimes if they are busy I get skipped until the next day.  But I don't know how this couldn't be more our fault than it is.  Sounded like when I talked to him last night all those soldier geeks were sitting in their windowless plywood hut talking about how crappy the Netherlands were in dealing with terrorism all day long yesterday.

    Parent
    Good. I hope you saw the other comments (none / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:38:02 PM EST
    about security in the Amsterdam airport as told by those who actually have experienced it recently.

    Parent
    I just did (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:58:12 PM EST
    And I just talked to him on the phone for my 10 minute talk about what a bunch of L-O-S-E-R-S the U.S. is.  It helps to have something to talk about because he can't really tell me anything about his personal life right now.  He starts to sound like Dustin Hoffman in Rainman sometimes.

    Parent
    Don't Understand What the Big Deal Is (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Dan the Man on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:42:43 PM EST
    Even if the community ratings prohibit difference in prices between the insured (it doesn't), all that means is instead of jacking up prices for some of the insured, they jack up the prices for all of the insured at the same time -- it does nothing about premium control ie cost control for the insured.

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:50:58 PM EST
    It's just another of the feel-good terms built into the legislation that means absolutely NOTHING.

    Parent
    NYPD profiling and abuse... (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:28:27 PM EST
    doing well in 2009 and into 2010, but this time they f*cked with one of their own so maybe someone will be held accountable for a change.  Link

    "This incident has opened my eyes" the profiled sarge says...now if we could only open the rest of the dept's...especially the brass.

    On Drum (none / 0) (#2)
    by robotalk on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:43:42 PM EST
    TS Eliot:

    Between the idea
    And the reality
    Between the motion
    And the act
    Falls the Shadow

    Between community rating and the death of private insurers or public utility-type regulation falls the shadow.

    Community rating does not assure regulation of cost in itself.  It might conceivably lead to the outcomes stated, but those outcomes are not necessary ones and it is unclear from these sources how or why they will necessarily be the outcomes.  

    New Obama order on classification (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:51:20 PM EST
    But, ironically, shrouded in secrecy

    President Barack Obama has apparently issued a long-awaited executive order on classification that fulfills one of his campaign promises by setting up a National Declassification Center to oversee the release of historical documents. But the announcement, ironically, is shrouded in secrecy and confusion.

    "While the Government must be able to prevent the public disclosure of information that would compromise the national security, a democratic government accountable to the people must be as transparent as possible and must not withhold information for self-serving reasons or simply to avoid embarrassment," National Security Council official William Leary wrote in a blog post announcing the order.

    Oddly, that blog post was dated and time stamped at 4:44 p.m. Monday but does not appear to have shown up on the White House website until a little before noon Tuesday. Adding to the mystery, the link to the executive order was dead at that time. Then, shortly after this reporter inquired about that dead link, the entire blog post disappeared.



    Anybody else see... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:55:26 PM EST
    the internet postings of the scrotum-bomber?

    First Hasan, now this guy...starting to wonder if our terrorist problems aren't really sexual repression problems caused by whacked-out religous teachings.

    If we took our entire anti-terror budget and rolled it into a massive world-wide muslim dating service and got to these lonely sexually repressed dudes before the terror recruiters we'd be a lot better off...and no harm to what is left of our civil liberties.

    I'm having a hard time picturing (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:11:58 PM EST
    the women who would voluntarily take part in your 'dating service.'  Beyond that, don't these pathetic creatures get 72 virgins in the hereafter for blowing themselves up?  

    Hard to beat that when you're dealing with believerpeople.

    Parent

    One also wonders (none / 0) (#19)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:43:07 PM EST
    if setting his genitals on fire (and perhaps rendering them inoperable) would mean that he could never take advantage of the 72 virgins in "Paradise"?  Or does his equipment get "fixed" after he dies?  Inquiring minds want to know.  ;-)

    Parent
    Even the most devout... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:00:24 PM EST
    lunatic has gotta have doubts about those 72 virgins being delivered. A little lovin' here in reality would have to be at least considered no?

    I hear you on female volunteers though...that would take some serious patriotism on their part...we could pay top dollar though, if the CIA has no budget neither should the dating service for peace.  100k per date and we still save a bundle...

    Parent

    If a lack... (none / 0) (#24)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:06:31 PM EST
    ...of "loving" puts one on the path to lunacy and/or terrorism, I'm in big trouble!

    Or, maybe I'm already to the lunatic stage.  Hmmmm.

    Parent

    They try not to even think about it (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:42:40 PM EST
    though, it's sinful.  Reminds me of Catholic repression a bit. And they keep the sexes very segregated from each other as well growing up.

    Parent
    And their moms have no Victoria Secret (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:44:19 PM EST
    catalog to swipe, and then she can't find it to order Christmas body spray for anybody.

    Parent
    LOL... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:19:01 PM EST
    Victoria's Secret catalog? Josh is getting an early start on girl-crazy is he?  

    I swear the more I hear about our hero the more legendary he becomes...I hope he becomes president one day, but I'm sure he's too smart to want the job.

    Parent

    I'm trying to pretend like I don't (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:53:39 PM EST
    know what happened to it.

    Parent
    LOL.... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:26:02 PM EST
    I'm sure you dream without a guilt trip some holy-roller laid on ya...I know I do during dry spells...that's enough:)

    Seriously though it ain't even about sex, though thats part of it...its about affection and companionship and human touch and feeling loved.  If you got those things, you got too much to live for to blow yourself and others up.  You can still have lunatic tendencies like yours truly, but a non-violent peace and love variety.

    Parent

    Memories and dreams... (none / 0) (#45)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:39:58 PM EST
    ...are pretty much all I'm left with.  And, you're right, it is the other stuff besides the sex that really matter in the end.  

    Parent
    You can't beat great memories. (none / 0) (#57)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:12:01 PM EST
    Not everyone has those, so cherish them!

    Parent
    There are people out there who agree (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:40:39 PM EST
    with you....

    Parent
    I am reading "Down the Nile," by (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:49:25 PM EST
    Rosemary Mahoney.  She asked a tourist guide in Abu Simbel if he would kill his sister if she had sex before marriage.  He sd. he wouldn't kill her but he would put her out of the house and disown her because she had disgraced the family name.  

    Parent
    It's a different world (none / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:50:49 PM EST
    Today is Tiger Woods' 34th B-day. (none / 0) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 03:06:41 PM EST


    And suspect in Letterman blackmail (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:39:11 PM EST
    case raises Woods' defense:

    link

    Parent

    Agree re investigate first. Then act. (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:04:29 PM EST
    Appears CIA and State Dept. may have some responsibility, not just Homeland Seccurity.  

    Polanski files a lawsuit against (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:30:30 PM EST
    paparazzi on public property taking photos of area of his Swiss chalet.  Where does he file the lawsuit?  France, which purportedly has strict laws in his favor.  But what gives France venue over acts ocurring in Switzerland? One heck of a long arm statute.  link

    On the funner side of life (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:48:44 PM EST
    I won't be seeing 'Nine' yet right off the bat this coming weekend.  We are going to Avatar again.  I was really amazed at the movie.  I thought I was going to have to endure it, even after the first fifteen minutes I thought it was still going to be an endurance and then snap.  It is a long film, but it was so good that Josh and I are going to the drive-in this weekend to see it with drive-in french fries and hamburgers.  It has a total chick flick side to it.

    Interesting, my wife saw it yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 08:17:26 PM EST
    with our older son and wants to go see it again with me.

    btw, what's a drive-in? ;-)

    Parent

    Cool, I'm not the only mom fixated (none / 0) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 09:04:08 PM EST
    At the drive-in you watch the movie from your luxurious car and you tune your car radio to a specific station setting and the movie sound comes through the car speakers.  Sounds pretty dorky, but you can bring your pillow and blanket.  My parents used to put us in our pajamas and go when I was a kid.  And when it's cold you turn your car off and on during the whole movie trying to stay warm :)  They are outdated but there is still one here that does a brisk business and is open weekends in the winter.  And they have the most amazing french fries and burgers.  Very over priced but they are delicious.  They also sell those ice cream DIBS, so that's dessert.  My husband hates them.  He stays home usually and it is just Josh and I that go.

    Parent
    And you asked as a joke didn't you? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 09:06:29 PM EST
    I need bed

    Parent
    'nite Tracy. :-) (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 11:43:31 PM EST
    Did you opt for the most expensive version? (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:51:01 PM EST
    The 3D thingy? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:07:45 PM EST
    I'm not sure what you are asking, but when we got to the theater and we don't have many of those, 3D glasses were involved which I did not know was part of the movie experience.  Since it is at the drive-in too though, I can't imagine they have a 3D version going on there.  When we got home Joshua watched Capt Howdy's movie and we did notice the similarity.  I wish Capt Howdy would come back so we could ask stuff.  And I have no idea when I'm going to sneak Sherlock Holmes in now.  I feel like the movie attending schedule is getting backlogged.

    Parent
    3d plus IMAX=$15 here. (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:45:59 PM EST
    IMAX would be so cool I bet (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:42:59 PM EST
    There are a lot panoramic scenes.  Now I have to find out if there's an IMAX in Dothan instead of the drive-in.

    Parent
    Don't worry if you don't get the 3D, I don't think (none / 0) (#49)
    by tigercourse on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:49:42 PM EST
    it added too much to the experience. It was actually a little distracting for about the first half of the movie.

    Parent
    I was a little too (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:43:39 PM EST
    It takes my eyes a bit to adjust.  They have many 3D movies out lately.

    Parent
    My son said he thought the visuals (none / 0) (#52)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:58:47 PM EST
    were incredible, but the story was cheesy. He was in line at the snack bar next to Dennis Haysbert.

    Parent
    He thought the story line was cheese huh? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:47:30 PM EST
    They have this way of interacting with the other living creatures in their world through this neuro tentacle tail.  So they are connecting to plants and animals they ride around on and its all so spiritual a way....I like plants and animals so much and that whole Buddhisty thing that we are all connected in a way.....I was sucked right in after that.  My eyes were like saucers.

    Parent
    And Dennis Hastert sees movies (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:50:00 PM EST
    that encourage a disconnect from our own dogma and that can only lead to Satan after that.....who knew :)?

    Parent
    Haysbert (none / 0) (#73)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 07:55:21 PM EST
    Google him and you'll know right away. Not Hastert.


    Parent
    I thought it was typo :) (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 08:01:59 PM EST
    Oh Wow, was that an accident or did he go to a special preview of the film?

    Parent
    Not sure... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 08:08:10 PM EST
    My son went to LA to screenwrite. He's done a number of red carpet events as a cameraman. Has made some nice connections, but my guess is this was a chance encounter. He spoke to him, though. I just don't dare ask him what his question meant 'cause his friends did a whole lot of LOLing on Facebook. (My son has an unbelievably funny and quick wit.)

    Parent
    He's very connected to all things living (none / 0) (#74)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 07:59:12 PM EST
    he just didn't get into this story. Doesn't mean it isn't a great movie to others.

    Parent
    A jarhead even finds himself (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 08:02:58 PM EST
    I didn't have a hope of not liking it :)

    Parent
    I can't sit still long enough for (none / 0) (#79)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 08:10:48 PM EST
    most movies...late onset ADHD, I think. :)

    Parent
    I can't do it at home (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 08:56:54 PM EST
    very well.  They are always griping at me about that and disturbing family movie time with loading the dishwasher. But once you've had toddlers can your brain ever fully recover?  Before parenthood I could read all day.  Now if I try to read longer than an hour, I always feel like some disaster is on the verge of happening because I'm not running around here.

    Parent
    Good Thing for puns (none / 0) (#36)
    by pluege on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:53:57 PM EST
    public option would have insured (pun intended) a good result.

    because the word is "ensured", not insured. Amazing how many don't know the difference between: insure, ensure, and assure.  

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:57:05 PM EST
    while I personally maintain the ensure/insure distinction to avoid confusion, the dictionary has absolutely no problem with the substitution of "insure" for "ensure."  Amazing how many don't know that!

    Parent
    Ensure always makes me think (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:08:37 PM EST
    of that nasty drink though.

    Parent
    Huh. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:38:03 PM EST
    I drink a variation of that stuff--Nepro--on a daily basis.  A very poor substitute for milk, but one can get used to just about anything.  

    But, the Iowa boy in me still longs for a nice, cold glass of chocolate milk!

    Parent

    Heh - compare the ingredients to (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 08:01:34 PM EST
    Slim Fast. They are pretty much the same thing.

    I used them once post-surgery when I couldn't stand long enough to fix a meal for myself.


    Parent

    Indeed. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 08:22:27 PM EST
    I had a right internet blow-out with some previous poster here a few years back over i/ensure.

    I held to common sense, he held to the dictionary's lack of distinction. Even when asked if it was expensive to "ensure" his vehicle.

    Ah well, I still think it's wise not to use the words interchangeably...


    Parent

    The pun wouldn't have worked (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 06:51:19 AM EST
    if I used ensure.

    Parent
    Ask and ye shall receive. Dems. (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:56:56 PM EST
    trying to shorten primary season---again.  AP

    Ah, it's screw-some-states (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Cream City on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:43:17 PM EST
    time and tick-off-Dem-base time again!  Go for it, Prima Donna and your Rules Committee -- get out the map and some darts and get your jollies again.  

    Heck, pick my state.  I could care less, as you have so screwed up my former party that it is my former party now.

    Parent

    Herding cats is easier if you sneak (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:52:04 PM EST
    up on em :)

    Parent
    Herding cats? (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 07:24:42 PM EST
    Just throw out some fresh meat and watch them "herd" on in  ;)

    Parent
    And all delegates would be pledged (none / 0) (#72)
    by Cream City on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 07:25:01 PM EST
    as well, as I read that story.

    Well, there goes the roll call forevermore.  Why bother with it?  And therefore, why bother with a convention?  The whole party, not just the faux pillars, will be nothing but styrofoam soon.

    Parent

    I'm too tired to go read tonight (none / 0) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 09:07:49 PM EST
    I got up at 5:00 today.  I'll have to go read tomorrow.

    Parent
    Just curious (none / 0) (#92)
    by CST on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 08:50:30 AM EST
    what's the problem with all pledged delegates?

    Personally, I think the existence of superdelegates is a little elitist.

    I think getting rid of the "supers" would make it more legitimate not less.

    Although they certainly need to standardize the primary process across the states.

    Parent

    Are you unfamiliar with how the delegates (none / 0) (#93)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:10:38 AM EST
    actually go to convention?

    The floor vote would be unnecessary if all the delegates are pledged and the exact vote count is known in advance.

    Parent

    yes (none / 0) (#94)
    by CST on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:16:24 AM EST
    and?

    I still don't see what the problem is.

    I am not "attached" to the idea of a floor vote.  I don't see why it's necessary.  I think pledging the delegates to the will of the voters is more important.

    Again, this would require a standardization of the primary process.  The one plus I see for superdelegates is they can act as a check on the process.  Not that I see them doing that...

    Parent

    Then why not (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:22:05 AM EST
    one big primary election day in July - no need for months of primaries and caucuses in all the states.  One vote - will of the voters - no convention - we all move on.

    Parent
    I could (none / 0) (#96)
    by CST on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:28:41 AM EST
    Be ok with that I guess.

    Shoot, we may have ended up with Howard Dean that way.  No time for the "scream".

    I guess one could make the argument that it gives a shot to lesser known candidates.  Also gives the chance for small states to have some say, and allows more voters to get to know the candidates (in a close race).  It's not like anyone goes campaigning in Iowa or NH during the general election.

    I dunno, I could go either way on the national primary day bit.

    Parent

    For all you "Big Lebowski" fans: (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 09:56:37 PM EST